Mutually assured democratic destruction

The term "mutually assured destruction" is well-known among political scientists, but it's also part of social ethos and popular culture. Coined by Donald Brennan, then at the Hudson Institute, in 1962, it means what we're used to referring to: the concept that two military superpowers, each with sufficient nuclear arsenals to destroy each other, thus had the incentive to avoid a conflict that would result in the launch of intercontinental ballistic missiles with their apocalyptic payloads. In the year 2025, the downfall of the United States seems to come less from the power of the atom than from a salamander.

It was in 1812 that the then Governor of the State of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry, signed the state decree determining that one of the districts in the Boston area would have a territorial configuration such that the election of the then Democratic-Republican Party candidate was guaranteed. The county was drawn on paper in such a way that it resembled a salamander. Thus, combining the Governor's name with the amphibian, the word "gerrymander" became a historical term. Adapted to today's terms for the election of representatives to the House of Representatives (the lower house of Congress), gerrymander applies to congressional districts in the United States.

On July 9th, the Governor of the State of Texas called a special session of the legislature to respond to the devastating flooding in Hill Country, which claimed at least 100 lives. Also on the agenda was the re-drafting of the state's congressional districts, which would theoretically lead to the election of five more Republicans to Congress in 2026. This followed President Trump's express request, which signaled that this needed to be done as soon as possible to increase his chances of securing leadership of Congress and the White House until 2028.

The Texas congressional district map has been repeatedly altered to create more districts with a majority of self-identified Republican voters, diluting minority and Democratic votes. During the Biden presidency, the Justice Department filed a court case for this change, but it was immediately abandoned when the Trump administration took office. Even voters in Texas initiated similar lawsuits under the famous (and crucial) Voting Rights Act of 1965. The only response Democrats in the Texas House of Representatives had was to abandon the state, moving to Illinois and New York, to deny the required quorum of legislators for the new map to advance and then be signed into law by Governor Abbott.

A recurring maneuver in both Republican and Democratic states, this one, in particular, appears to be a desperate response to polls, discontent , and the inevitable increase in hardship for Americans, whether economic (tariffs), social benefits (the Big Beautiful Bill), the disproportionate impact of immigration removal measures (masked officers and unmarked vans), or even the sight of the military in police operations on the streets of their cities. With the average voter turnout difference of 3.5% between a Democratic and a generic Republican candidate, this could lead to a change in leadership in the House of Representatives in November 2026, which could involve impeachments, investigations, hearings, budget oversight, support for Ukraine, and so on. Five more Republicans could make all the difference.

Governor Abbott's actions have now created an arms race (continuing to use military language), but in this case, to have as many elected officials as possible for each party in the United States. The Governor of California has already threatened to do the same, which in turn has led Florida to say it will do the same, but in the opposite direction, and New York to say it will do the same for California, and Ohio to say it will do the same for Florida, and...and...

The idea that governors will choose the voters who vote for candidates, when voters should choose the candidates who represent them, does not bode well for a country already on the brink of political and social cohesion. All of this represents the culmination of the erosion, through polarization and greed, of the dream of Founding Fathers like James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams, of the principle of republicanism, of electing representatives of the people who reflect not only the will of those elected, but also their nature and diversity.

If this mutual destruction of democracy advances, and with all the terrible consequences it can cause locally and nationally, Benjamin Franklin's famous phrase begins to take on a more ominous form: "A Republic... if they can keep it."